Last time on Legacy, we looked at the way that volcanoes linked to the demise of Cleopatra

and the rise of the Roman Empire. We talked about butterfly effects, ecosystem changes,

and how seemingly small events can have massive impact.

Is the butterfly effect a concept that is widely accepted in scholarly circles, Peter?

Is it legitimate the idea that a really tiny, although a volcano isn't tiny,

but just let's say it is a tiny phenomenon, can have ripple effects that end up with massive impacts elsewhere?

Is that something that's taken seriously in academic circles?

Academic circles, we argue about everything. So you can argue about the name in quantum

physics is about major impacts of small signifiers. So I think that most historians would

understand that there can be single events that have catastrophic impacts. I guess the most

famous one in all history,

certainly in Europe,

is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

The Archduke of Sarajevo,

which I remember in my school history lessons

was kind of described as like the spark

that lit the tinder fire

whose flames then spread into the First World War.

And you'll be hard pushed to find a historian who'll agree with you, right?

Even though there is some truth in it, it's all about the underlying themes, etc., etc.

So normally it's about trying to find an event that does, the Tinder is more important in lots of ways than the spark.

I guess what historians would say,

...